Fracking The Party

The reason for Mitt Romney's general unpopularity has recently been exposed, and in the process, so have a great many operatives working for his rise to the presidency. The sad thing is, this has caused a rift in the political family that may be difficult to work past.

For the past few days, the Drudge Report has been plastered with damning stories of Newt Gingrich's alleged infidelity, but not the marital type. Instead, Drudge has linked to story after story of reports from other conservative darlings coming out to figuratively stone Gingrich into oblivion, thereby paving a smoother path for Romney to the nomination.

Ann Coulter -- a huge Romney gal -- has all but Borked Newt, most recently and most shrilly claiming that a Gingrich nomination will reelect Obama. When our beloved Ann uses the scare tactics usually reserved for the "enemy", it is quite unsettling when she turns them on her fan base. Drudge joining in on the antics hasn't helped, either. It's one of my first online stops of the day, and I've been feeling quite glum in the past few. Even Tom Delay piled on, despite the solidarity he enjoyed from many of us just a few short years ago.

"What could be happening?", many of us thought. Since it seemed so unseemly that our former champions could turn on us in such dramatic fashion, I started to wonder early today if I had misjudged Newt Gingrich; I started to doubt my backing him.

Fortunately Red County.com -- an organization to which I am more proud today than ever to be a contributor -- discovered something that both assuaged my  fears and confirmed my worst suspicions; the Republican Party had been fractured. To make matters worse, the very people and outlets I had counted on for truth had lied to me. Whether these are differences that will prove to be irreconcilable or not remain to be seen. I suppose it depends on the level of contrition of the offenders when the dust settles. Suffice it to say that for now, dear Ms. Coulter, I am very disappointed in you. (You're on my list, too, Matt!)

Red County posted an editorial with a a full response from the Gingrich team enclosed. It's an article from Legal Insurrection, written by former Reagan staffer William A. Jabobson, and it puts to rest the notion being spread all over the web by Romney-ites that Gingrich was less than an enthusiastic supporter of Reagan. This bolstered my spirits instantly, but my anger began to mount in unison with the good news when repeated trips back to Drudge failed to mention the breakthrough. That's when I was sure that Drudge was also in the tank for Romney.

Learning later today that Rush Limbaugh had discussed the strafing of Gingrich by his colleagues and railed against it helped to buoy my mood. Ronald Reagan's son Michael also came out to counter the lies being spread by the cabal against Gingrich, but the icing on the cake was seeing Drudge finally and -- I suspect -- grudgingly post this welcome news up on his aggregate.

Speaking to Newsmax, here's part of what Michael Reagan had to say today:

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.
Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.
It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president."

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.
I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

I'm gratified to learn that my allegiance to Newt is not unfounded, but I am deeply disturbed at the depths to which people I have trusted have sunk so as to achieve a goal of promoting a candidate clearly not desired by the choir to whom they preach.

I think the time has come for all of the angry electorate to unite behind the man they would most like to see face Obama in the general election in November. I would also love to see the TEA Party come out in full endorsement of Gingrich. That will teach the haughty among us that they are preferred pundits but not our true representatives.

We can work on the bitter betrayal somewhere down the road.

Sphere: Related Content

At Long Last, the Awakening Masses

And the Scales Fell from Their Eyes

Here we are on the dawn of a new revolution, albeit one a bit tamer than the one of our inception, yet one no less dependent on the extraordinary courage of its participants. After all, this time the stakes just might be higher than 240 years ago, while the combatants include not only ideological enemies but allies gone somewhat awry.

Conservatives have been under attack for the past half century, and have only recently mounted an effective counter-insurgency in perhaps the last decade. Some of the key players in the climb back to respectability have been cult heroes such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, and others of their ilk. And while they deserve much credit for the arousal of the right, something happened to them along the way, something that seems to happen to leaders of all stripes at some point; a sense of self-adorned majesty apparently crept into their minds, one that refused to accept defiance.

We have had our favorite commentators since the Clinton presidency, and we have allowed ourselves to fall comfortably into the warm folds of their embraces, somewhat secure in the notion that they shared our core values. What we have seen in this primary season is not so much a betrayal of those shared values, but a sudden veering off the road to their achievement. We're now sharply at odds with the voices we not long ago cherished over the proper course to our nation's revival, and our alleged leader-pundits are not at all happy over our detour.

Ann Coulter -- who I love dearly -- has become apoplectic over the possibility that Newt Gingrich could become the republican nominee to face Obama. No, she warns, only Mitt Romney can save us! Once upon a time, many of us would have fallen into lockstep with Ann's decrees, but the times, they are a-changin'.

A Crowd of Motivated TEA Partiers

Thanks in part to the TEA Party, we are poised to see a record number of voters turn out for a presidential election. More importantly, however, is the fact that many more people are actually engaging early and making their wishes known, and clearly. Traditionally, perhaps half of the electorate hibernates throughout the primary process, relying on sound bites and campaign ads and emerging on Election Day like Punxsutawney Phil to cast their votes for -- or against -- whomever the eventual nominee may be.

Not so this time around. People are angry, frustrated, fed up with this failed president, and disgusted with the mainstream media for its malfeasance in  reporting accurately on it. To top it all off, we have learned to stand on principle rather than probability, making the voices of our side less crucial to the decision making process.

This is why Newt has done so well; we know of his foibles and frailties, and they are not that important now in the face of the task we must undertake. That is because we also know of Newt's strengths. We are no longer going to meekly offer up a candidate we are told can garner the most votes. We are prepared to put up the candidate we believe will be the most effective, and then we will vote for that candidate en masse.

Timidity is what gave us John McCain in 2008, and that was slightly more palatable than today because we had only a speculative notion of Barack Obama. Now that we have experienced three years of Obama's "leadership", the urgency to be rid of him has aided in our boldness.

It seems we are more than sufficiently motivated to grab the reins of our own destiny in this election year, even if it does cause some past heroes a bit of agita.

Sphere: Related Content

Gingrich Refuses to Bow

Gingrich Under Attack from
Liberal "Victims"

The fastest and easiest way to get what you want in current-day America is to be portrayed -- or portray yourself -- as a victim. Liberals love a victim as conservatives love apple pie, mom, and baseball. Or liberty.

Both ideological groups will defend what they love fiercely, albeit through vastly different methods. The latter group will defend with honor that which they hold dear simply because the affection is genuine. The former will use lies and misdirection not out of genuine concern for their charge, but rather the benefit to themselves for success in doing so.

To a vast many Americans, both the lives they have known and the stories of their ancestors' lives are something they wish to continue, and that which they see slowly slipping away. They have seen first hand or been told on a knee of the immigrants that have built this nation into what it is...or was until a few short years ago. Those immigrants have succeeded and become us without the alleged benefit of advocates shrieking on every corner about how they have been unjustly discriminated against.

So what has changed? Today, Democrats have built for themselves a cottage empire -- designed not to aid those they profess to champion, but rather to exploit for a continuance of power -- that vilifies anyone who dares to speak the truth. The targets of liberal accusations to this effect have themselves become overly sensitized to criticism, and have sacrificed principle for acceptance.

This week, Newt Gingrich has shown us what courage under such fire looks like.

During Monday night's Republican debate, moderator Juan Williams tried to get Gingrich to back-pedal on his recent criticism of President Obama. Gingrich has previously referred to Obama as the food stamp president, and Williams on Monday asked Gingrich if he was "seeking to belittle people" with such rhetoric. Rather than apologetically try to rephrase his criticisms, Gingrich firmly reiterated his meaning:

“The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history ... I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.”

When Gingrich finished his answer, the audience was on its feet, roaring its approval. Part of the reason for this is that, despite making the most noise, liberals are not the majority in this country. Most people want someone who will finally stand up to the political correctness running amok in America, and Gingrich has demonstrated a willingness to do just that. He has also shone a spotlight on the suffocating effects of liberal coddling of minorities, keeping them dependent rather than freeing their entrepreneurial spirits.

What Gingrich showed on Monday night is that he will not be put on the defensive against Obama when the Divider-in-Chief whips out the race card, nor when he launches into his heart rending class warfare. Newt has shown a desire to thoughtfully articulate the conservative principle of a hand up rather than a hand out. With that ability, Obama will be forced into policy debates with Gingrich, where he will lose badly.

This is the reason that the media is pulling out all the stops in an attempt to rip Gingrich from the top of the Republican nominee list, and why they continue to promote Romney in yet another bid to "McCain" us like they did in 2008. While the rest of the field had their rising moments -- only to ultimately fall back down again -- Newt has risen, fallen, and risen again. The latest Rasmussen poll from South Carolina is expected to show Gingrich leading Romney by 2 percentage points, 33%-31%.

There is still a long way to go to the nomination, but the thought of a president who refuses to bow has a nice feel to it.

Sphere: Related Content

Mitt's Gall, Newt's Baggage

The Two Front-Runners for GOP

There can be no argument that the 2011 incarnation of Mitt Romney, the candidate, is not a far better candidate than the version that ran in 2008, and as if to punctuate the point, Mitt's campaign has come out with the first direct salvo of the season against Obama-the-incumbent.

The surprise of the move is not in the hubristic nature of such presumptuousness --Gingrich, after all, has made it clear that the two are rivals and not "opponents" -- but in the aggressiveness of it. And it's already drawing howls of protest from Obama's camp and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as a whole, claiming that the ad is misleading.

Romney's ad, which ran today in New Hampshire to coincide with Obama's visit, could legitimately be labelled "sleight of hand", but it nevertheless suggests a basic truth: if Obama's campaign keeps talking about the economy, he will lose. The ad uses Obama's own words from the 2008 campaign against John McCain, but Obama was quoting a McCain staffer at the time. From the Daily News:

At one point, Obama is heard saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." 

Although it sounds [sic] Obama is talking about his chances of winning in 2012, the then-Senator was actually quoting an aide from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008.

How fitting it is, then, that Newt Gingrich shares the lead with Romney.

Gingrich knows a thing or two about misleading ads, himself a victim of creative editing in a time when the technology was not nearly what it is today. As Speaker of the House in 1995, Gingrich was leading the fight against the last Democrat President's attempt to inflict National health care on Americans and, as usual, the leftist sycophants struck back hard, albeit deceitfully.

As Bill Clinton was trying valiantly to implement the signature plan of his wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton, for health care reform, Gingrich was leading the opposition and gave a speech on the matter in 1995 to a Blue Cross audience. His words were selected in part and used to demonize him in what has turned out to be a most effective way. I know people to this day who still harbor a deep hatred for the man based on a lie.

It was the infamous "wither on the vine" faux-quote", in which the left allegedly caught the right wing Speaker admitting that the Republicans wanted to kill Medicare. In 1996, during the re-election campaign of Bill Clinton, the AFL-CIO ran an ad with Newt's "own words" saying, "Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine."

But, as I pointed out in 2009, the quote was not in the full context of Gingrich's speech. Here's what he actually said, and meant:

"What do you think the health care financing administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

Voters will do well to remember that it wasn't Medicare that Republicans wanted to kill, it was government-run health care, much as it still is today. And as Gingrich moves closer toward the nomination, also remember this when he begins to take on that which the Democrats inflicted on us when they controlled it all. Whomever ends up with the GOP nomination, repeal of Obamacare will be a top priority, for it is that route which will cause the most immediate impact on our foul economy.

It is also pertinent to note Gingrich's use of the word "voluntarily". Think of how many of Obama's own cronies have already filed for waivers from his health care monstrosity. Even people who view this president favorably have already begun preemptively leaving it, voluntarily.

If the Democrats want to whine their way through what is slated to be a particularly nasty campaign, let them, but the Republicans must be prepared to hit them with all of Mitt's gall and the full weight of Newt's baggage.

Sphere: Related Content

Who Would Herman Cain Pick?

Dream Team

That may well turn out to be the biggest question leading to the nomination of Herman Cain, a back-to-back offering of Black candidates. Got a problem with that? Too bad, it may be reality on the horizon, so I would beseech any White Supremacist readers to reconsider your views.

Herman Cain is gaining momentum and could set a record as an American first; no, not the first Black president, but the first of any color to attain the Oval Office with virtually no political experience. Can't happen, you say? Uh-huh, I used to believe the same thing, but hasn't Barack Hussein Obama come through on at least one promise, that being "change"?

Yes, I would tip my hat in that regard.

Obama was only the third U.S. Senator to win a general election for President of the United States directly from the Senate, sharing that distinction with John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding. Good company, but such that would now be recoiling in horror at what their new inductee hath wrought. However, Obama has achieved that which the others never considered; opening the field for the best candidate over the established crop, and our nation is once again ready to cast off old customs in the spirit of desperation.

Would it require desperation to elect a man like Herman Cain? In a purely political sense, I would say yes, but I believe that the electorate has had its fill of the unknown, trusting that Obama was a new ray of hope even as they have seen those hopes dashed by the machinations of a master manipulator. Obama made promises to deliver goods to which he held no title.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, is making lofty promises as well, but ones that bear no similar traits as the gossamer vows offered by Obama. Cain is holding out as candy the opportunity that all Americans have come to expect, sans the alleged guarantees that Obama pledged. If any further explanation is required on that topic, I'm afraid that you, the reader, simply can't understand.


Suffice it to say that Herman Cain may be the only member of the current crop of candidates who actually comprehends the desires of ordinary Americans, no matter what color he may be. No one that I know is asking for anything other than to be left to their own devices with as little government interference as possible. They want to be able to succeed or fail at their own discretion. Is that so bad?

Which brings us to the title question: "Who would Herman Cain pick?", as in, a running mate. Should Cain win the nomination, it would be on the whims of the electorate closely aligned with the same philosophy while the entire middle of the spectrum would be skeptical of a political neophyte in the Oval Office. (Again, that's already been tried, with disastrous results).

But what if a second attempt was all that remained available to an electorate ready to explode? Would our neighbors shun a new path simply because its direction was unclear, despite the end they see rapidly approaching downstream? For instance, let's suppose that Herman Cain was standing at the bow begging for an oar; would we be reluctant to deliver it to him and accept a rocky fate out of uncertainty?

I would be happy with Herman Cain at the helm, and if it meant someone like Newt Gingrich reading the charts, great! The Captain makes the ultimate decision but often relies on the expertise of his navigator. No better man is there than Gingrich, a seasoned House negotiator and himself an eloquent speaker, pardon the pun.

If Cain could set the course and have Newt available to avoid the anomalies therein, who could ask for anything more? While there is little doubt that our local "news" stations or papers would do their utmost to convince us otherwise, I'm committed to the fact that most of us have moved beyond the daily feeding cycle of those sources in determining our futures.

For the first time in my life, I am beginning to believe that we may actually have the chance to elect the best person to lead us, regardless of political pedigree. If Herman Cain can maintain his current stature in the polls and ultimately win the nomination, America would be faced with a 2012 choice between Obama or Cain. The irony is too delicious, and on so many levels.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. Hyde Returns

A Lovely Couple

It's official; I am done with Newt Gingrich. He's a nice enough fellow, of that  there is little doubt, but he has in the past proven at times to be too nice. Then again, so was Dr. Jekyll, which leaves one to genuinely wonder if Newt is bipolar.

In 1994, during Bill Clinton's presidency, Gingrich spearheaded the Republican revolution that saw that party win the House for the first time in forty years. The victory also propelled him to the Speaker's chair. As a result, a frothing Liberal coalition was formed which immediately set about the task of the demonization of the "ultra-right-wing" Gingrich. And it was mostly made possible by Newt's bitter opposition to the Clintons' designs regarding health care.

Then, a mere eleven years later, Gingrich angered the base that once revered the historian and all-around bright guy, the guy they saw as the hero who had slain the Clinton health care dragon. In 2005, when Hillary was first dipping her toes in the presidential waters, Newt and Hillary were suddenly "an item", appearing together at news conferences and on talk shows, with Gingrich singing adoring praises for the first woman presidential wannabe.

An Extremely Odd Couple

In May of 2005, the New York Times reported on the gushing words of Gingrich being lavished on Mrs. Clinton. It was portrayed then as a virtual kumbaya, and that's what it was. In one part of the article, the Times makes a pertinent point as it relates to Newt's current presidential aspirations, albeit prophetically. Just about midway through the article, the Times states:

As it turns out, Mr. Gingrich and Mrs. Clinton have a lot more in common now that they have left behind the politics of the 1990's, when she was a symbol of the liberal excesses of the Clinton White House and he was a fiery spokesman for a resurgent conservative movement in Washington.

I must confess, I am also guilty of forgetfulness in my zeal to see Newt run this time around. I also forgot about another stunning event a few years later, when Gingrich took to the couch with Nancy Pelosi who -- destined to be the speaker shortly thereafter -- actually makes Hillary look like a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.

In an advertisement to beseech our government to "do something" about Global Warming, Gingrich once again slept with the enemy by espousing a silly concept that he would later counter in a Congressional hearing. The video is here.



Two years later, Gingrich published  A Contract with the Earth, which set off another kabuki dance in which Liberals praised him and Conservatives gasped. In 2008, just a year later, Gingrich published Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. That tome had his newfound friends on the left questioning his commitment to the environment and the cause. Newt was fast becoming a human pendulum. In 2009, he pushed further to the right, testifying before a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on "climate change" legislation in which he ripped Al Gore's ideas to shreds and challenged the former Vice President to engage in discussions on the matter.

Suddenly, Newt was ours again, but only for a while.

Just yesterday on the May 15th Sunday Meet the Press, Gingrich assaulted the Republican plan touted by Paul Ryan as "right wing social engineering", and endorsed a government mandate that citizens be required to purchase health insurance. As this country is slowly being dragged back to its senses by the Tea Party movement -- as evidenced by the mid term elections -- we're now not only fighting a formidable Progressive monolith...we're fighting the man who was once described by the New York Times as a "fiery spokesman for a resurgent conservative movement in Washington".

No thank you. I will not speak or write well of Newt Gingrich again until he is well past the age of a viable Presidential candidacy. He is a smart man and an excellent historical mind, but I do not want such a man anywhere near the Oval Office.

Sphere: Related Content

No Tacking to Starboard

Much has been made of Bill Clinton's political savvy by virtue of his tactical navigation following the Newt Gingrich-led capture of Congress in 1994, Clinton's first mid-term election of his first term as president. As Gingrich engineered his place as Speaker of the House, Clinton had the sense to recognize the mood of the people, and corrected his course by tacking back toward the center, and away from the far left destination he originally sought.

Hillary was not happy at "the captain's" decision, but being the good first mate, she obeyed the orders out of a sense of duty, no matter the bitter after taste. There was a brief brush with mutiny with her health care fiasco, but nothing that agitated the crew to the point of disaster, and the administration chugged along, actually benefiting from the grounding sense of it's opposition. President Clinton's acceptance of parts of his foe's ideas helped to cement his perceived greatness. He was a political prodigy.

Now we have Liberal commentators desperately trying to convince the electorate that - despite our own perceptive experience - Obama will follow the same trajectory in order to remain politically viable. Regardless of Obama's increasingly defiant rhetoric, we're expected to believe that he may suddenly succumb to some sort of epiphany that will miraculously transform him into a moderate who will heed the admonitions of the masses.

Sorry, I'm not buying, and I suspect there will be many who did who will soon be on the long returns line seeking credit or exchange.

The primary reason for my prognostication lies in Obama's stubborn refusal to accept his own inadequacies, or even the possibility that he may be on the wrong path. He paints his opposition as either having nefarious intent, or as mentally deficient and incapable of comprehending his magnificence. He is utterly convinced that his vision for America, regardless of its incredible divergence from the Founders' intent, is correct, and if he can't convince you, he will mandate you.

Rather than realize that his agenda is viewed by the people as not only unacceptable, but infuriating, Obama instead maintains that we're not thinking clearly, and that our information sources are lying to us. He will stop at nothing to discredit critics, going so far as to make baseless accusations and false statements. Pretty strange behavior for an alleged lawyer.

Someone capable of such arrogance is certainly unlikely to yield to pressure. It will be extremely interesting to see how Obama deals with the distinct probability that he will no longer have the measure of support from Congress that he currently enjoys. It appears almost certain that for the second half of his singular term he will face a hostile crowd in the Capitol.

This should be fun.

Sphere: Related Content

I Think Newt Will Run

For years Sean Hannity has been pestering Newt Gingrich about a possible run for the presidency, and for years Newt has been coy about his answers, while not actually running. I believe that Gingrich played it smart by waiting, opting to let the left take another shot at it, counting on the disaster that is now happening before our eyes.

Now, it sounds like he's ready to make his move. If that is the case, be prepared for the left to bring on the heavy artillery, along with every negative ad ever run about Gingrich being resurrected.




To my fellow bloggers, keep this piece in mind: Withering on the Vine. It may come in handy during the 2012 election season.

Sphere: Related Content

Why The Left Hates Ollie

Oliver North is unabashedly pro-military, which should surprise no one since he is the recipient of the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and the Presidential Service Badge for his service to America in the Vietnam War. Combine those credentials with his equally intense love for his country, and it is easy to see why liberals hate him.

Thinking that they could destroy such an icon - and subsequently failing - in the 80's with the Iran-Contra scandal, they were frustrated and infuriated. North's addition to the Fox News team was the coup de grace.

In light of the enemies at the helm today, consider this man as our future president. Do you think he'd suffice? I think "Tea Party Approved" would make for a wonderful tag line.



I also think that the combination of the love of country and the Constitution would make any combination of Oliver North and Newt Gingrich unbeatable.

Sphere: Related Content

Gingrich "Gripping & Grinning"

As much as I've always liked Newt Gingrich, there was a time - 2008, for example - when even I realized that he was perhaps too toxic to be a candidate for president. Still saddled unfairly with the false stigma of wanting to "kill Medicare", it seemed that Newt would have been a drag on the Republican party's chances of succeeding George W. Bush.

At the time, I never imagined that John McCain would win the nomination, but even then it seemed more unimaginable that Barack Whatshisname had a prayer of becoming president at all. With a past shrouded in mystery, what little we did know about Obama suggested no acumen or experience that would guide him to the Oval Office. Well, look at us now.

The man running our country seems hell-bent on our demise - barely concealing the contempt that half us knew was there prior to his election - and yet enjoying adulation in lieu of scrutiny from the press. The few organizations and individuals that actually sound the alarm bells are cast as dangerous heathens, the serious message dismissed out of hand.

Thankfully the ranks of the dismayed have expanded well beyond talk radio hosts and Internet news outlets, spawning the Tea Party movement and, now, emboldening potential 2012 contenders to speak up. Heaven knows our current Republican representatives have been more than timid in their opposition to the Obama, Reid and Pelosi agenda.

With Obama spearheading the radical transformation of America, he immediately set out to create the impression that this nation is just like any other, no better and no worse, which is undoubtedly how he and his wife have viewed it. His early Forgive Us Our Trespasses tour, in which he winged around the world in order to apologize and bow to foreign leaders, was the beginning.

He then accelerated an insane spending spree, the likes of which are unprecedented, and perpetrated a government takeover of private businesses. His economic policies have stifled job growth, he has raised taxes, broken promises, and quarterbacked a hurry-up offense in legislation, all the while claiming to be doing "the peoples' work" despite the fact that more than half of the people kept shouting "NO!" and "STOP!".

He has coddled our enemies while alienating our allies, ignoring the taunts of North Korea and Iran while chastising and ostracizing Israel and Great Britain. His treatment of his counterparts has been an embarrassment, to put it mildly, and would be laughable if they weren't so sad.

Now he has ordered the term "Islamic jihad" removed from threat assessments, telegraphed our intent to remain passive when attacked, and cavalierly announced that we'll be severely reducing our defense capabilities. Apparently he sees no threats from without, but seems more than eager to attack as potentially dangerous the Tea Parties and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. History has shown that tyrants typically engage their critics on such a personal and intimate level.

So it is with pleasure that I now see Newt Gingrich dipping his toes in the campaign waters in New Orleans. If ever the time was right for a serious contender in 2012, it is now. Perhaps Newt knew this in 2008 as well, although I'd wager he never expected the need now to be as crucial as it is.

There is already speculation of a Gingrich/Palin ticket emerging in the near future. Sarah would need some heavy exposure as a competent leader as governor of Alaska, and it's doubtful the New York Times or Newsweek would offer any help; or truth.

But Gingrich, along with whomever should be his running mate, is emerging as the right man at the right time. Whatever toxicity there may have been has dissipated. Combined with the obvious disaster that has been inflicted upon us, the triad of Obama, Reid and Pelosi has infuriated so many people that whatever attacks they may level at Gingrich leading up to 2012 will likely be largely ineffective.

There is also the great possibility that Obama will be damaged beyond repair when forced to deal with a hostile Congress for the last two years of his reign. Newt, I hope you hear us. We need you desperately.

Sphere: Related Content

Two Plus Two Equals Four

It's a basic truth of life, but one that has come under assault from the left nevertheless. Newt Gingrich explains it best in these videos from this years CPAC conference. Enjoy:

Sphere: Related Content